To think the Pope should not be putting out messages suggesting child abuse accusers 'had it in for George Pell'

[ShootsFruitAndLeaves]

Today is Tuesday 7th April.

It is not a day of special significance in the Christian calendar.

What is significant is that a senior Catholic priest had his child abuse conviction overturned.

edition.cnn.com/2020/04/06/australia/australia-cardinal-pell-high-court-hnk-intl/index.html

We do not know, and nor does the Pope, what happened .

However the Pope has felt fit to tweet

twitter.com/Pontifex/status/1247438777586298880

"In these days of #Lent, we've been witnessing the persecution that Jesus underwent and how He was judged ferociously, even though He was innocent. Let us #PrayTogether today for all those persons who suffer due to an unjust sentence because of someone had it in for them"

This 'in for them' clause seems particularly egregious. AIBU to think this tweet is a disgrace worthy of Donald Trump?

Anyone, whether they're in the Catholic church at any level or completely indifferent to religion, who stands by or covers up child sex abuse is scum. It's disgraceful on every level.

I've just posted another thread about this verdict, hadn't seen the Popes message, but IMO it doesn't sit well does it.

The appeal court found that the jury thought the witness was honest and believable (which is why they returned a unanimous verdict) but said they 'failed to take into account' the statements and testimony of other "witnesses" , who were coincidentally lay personnel and priests at the church Pell presided over. It appears the Church looks after its own in these matters doesn't it, as it has for many many decades.

It seems rather obnoxious to compare a priest whose conviction has been vacated merely because of lack of evidence ('significant possibility he was innocent') to Jesus. Jesus is innocent as a matter of doctrine. Pell has not been found innocent, merely a significant possibility that he might be.

Clearly there are two explanations

Pell abused the boys in which case nobody should be defending him
Or
Pell didn't abuse the boys in which case serving 17 months out of a six year sentence is bad but perhaps not top of the papal priority list in current circumstances

It is not a day of special significance in the Christian calendar.

It’s Holy Week.

But I don’t disagree, although a tweet in the name of the Pope it certainly would not have been drafted by his holiness. It’s in such bad taste.

I’m hoping it will be taken down and an explanation given that this isn’t the view of his holiness. I would hope so anyway. Very very poor taste and certainly not the time.

Yes it is Holy Tuesday, however this comes some way down the ranking of 'days'

The appeal court found that the jury thought the witness was honest and believable (which is why they returned a unanimous verdict) but said they 'failed to take into account' the statements and testimony of other "witnesses" , who were coincidentally lay personnel and priests at the church Pell presided over

The other witnesses were not all lay personnel and priests unless you include choirboys, adult members of the choir and altar servers (who were young boys) in that list. As far as I can see none of them were priests, although I may be wrong about that - I am not fully familiar with Roman Catholic terminology.

The testimony of these other witnesses was uncontested by the prosecution and showed that Pell spent 10-20 minutes after each service greeting people, that he was always accompanied whilst wearing his vestments within the cathedral (as required by canon law) and that the priests' sacristy was a hive of activity after mass. All of these points were attested to by multiple witnesses. For the assault to have taken place as described all three of these points (all of which were testified to by multiple witnesses) would have to be wrong. If any one of them was correct Pell would not have had any opportunity to commit the offences with which he was charged.

The complainant alleged that another there was a second victim. This second alleged victim is now dead but, before he died, he told his mother that it wasn't true - he had not been sexually assaulted. The complainant also changed parts of his story when it became clear that his original story was impossible.

No-one can say for certain that Pell is innocent but your certainty of his guilt is misplaced. On the evidence the court was right to find him not guilty.

By the way, whoever translated the Pope's tweet into English hasn't done a terribly good job on this one. His native language is Spanish. The Spanish version of the tweet talks about an "unjust sentence due to cruelty".

The man in charge of an organisation known for covering up child abuse is comparing this man to Jesus. Fucking hell.

I believe the victim. Everyone in my own (Victorian, Catholic) community believes the victim. Even my devout 94 year old grandmother believes the victim.

I attended Mass for years and spent a lot of time hanging around because Mum was an organist. The Sacristry was usually busy after Mass, yes. Could I swear that 17 years ago, it was not empty for five minutes? No.

Anyone who does swear that is not credible in my view. Reminds me of Prince Andrew. The jury clearly agreed - and they saw the witnesses in person.

Deciding the facts is the jury’s job. And they found the chief witness more credible than the witnesses Pell’s team chose to defend him.

A pity the Prosecution didn’t have a more aggressive silk to rip into those witnesses and make them contradict themselves... thus rendering the jury’s verdict “safe” in the eyes of seven judges later.

I’ve been in that Cathedral and met Pell, if it matters.

I know what fucking happened, those men, those survivors told the truth and are being once again called liars by the Vatican. How fucking dare they. But power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. May they rot in their hell.

Anyone who does swear that is not credible in my view

No-one swore that. The point is that for the accuser's version of events to be true a number of unlikely events have to have happened.

Deciding the facts is the jury’s job

Not entirely true. Under Australian law the court can legitimately look at whether a guilty verdict was open to the jury on the evidence presented. And, under UK law, the court can look at whether the judge should have directed the jury to acquit.

A pity the Prosecution didn’t have a more aggressive silk to rip into those witnesses and make them contradict themselves

They accepted the evidence of those witnesses because it was true. Pell did greet members of the congregation for 10-20 minutes at the door of the cathedral after services. It is the long-established practice of the church that the archbishop must always be accompanied whilst wearing his ceremonial vestments. It is the case that the sacristy is a hive of activity in the brief period when it is unlocked after a service. It is the case that it is unlikely that two robed choirboys would be able to leave the procession and re-enter the cathedral without being observed.

None of the witnesses could say for certain that these things were true on the date of the alleged offence. After all, it was a long time ago. They gave evidence that these things usually happened, not that they happened on the specific date of the offence. But if any one of these things happened that day the offence cannot have occurred.

It is also the case that the accuser's evidence at the trial was different from his evidence at the committal, where it became apparent that his original version of events was physically impossible.

those men, those survivors told the truth

Just to repeat, there was only one accuser in this case. The other person he named as being abused died of an accidental heroin overdose. Before his death he specifically denied that he had been abused.

It may be that Pell is guilty but, having read both the judgement of the Victoria Supreme Court and this judgement, my view is that he should never have been convicted.

psychic
purple

Agree with you both 100% (except this case did involve a single complainant)

That evidence was bollocks. My cousins snuck off and drank alter wine sometimes, lots of alter boys did, it was a perk of the job. They were never caught (and thankfully never abused). No one noticed them leaving the procession. The same for all of it.

This was a truly despicable response by the Vatican.

I used to follow the Pope on Twitter. Looking at the feed, his or perhaps "his" tweets have become a lot less bland of late.

Could he have been hacked?! and too busy due to pandemic to noticed yet?